DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-12, drawn to a device and system for obtaining penis circumference change data during penile tumescence monitoring, classified in A61B5/107.
II. Claim 13, drawn to a method of measuring penis circumference and monitoring penile tumescence, classified in A61B5/4393.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product as it can be used to measure the circumference of any object or body part.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Jovan Jovanovic on 2/6/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Invention I, claims 1-12. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“communication module arranged to transmit data” in claim 1 and its dependents.
“memory module configured to store the data received form the microprocessor” in claim 2
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“communication module” is described in the spec in paragraph [0027]-[0028] as a Bluetooth low energy communications module, or equivalent thereof
“memory module” is described in paragraphs [0011], [0044], [0052] and [0058] as a memory on a printed circuit board, or equivalent thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of advancing prosecution, the examiner will interpret the limitations following “preferably” as not required by the claim when evaluating the claim on the basis of prior art.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "a cloud database" in line 2, however it is unclear if this “a cloud database” is the same or different than the “a cloud database” established in claim 11 which claim 12 is dependent upon. Since there are two cloud databases preceded by “a”, the claim becomes indefinite because we cannot determine if the smart device of claim 12 needs to be connected to the same cloud database that the device is connected to in claim 11, or another different cloud database.
For the purpose of advancing prosecution, the examiner will interpret the limitation “a cloud database” recited in claim 12 as the same cloud database recited in claim 11 when evaluating the claim on the basis of prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotaling (US 2014/0171767 A1) in view of Persidsky et al (examiner provided foreign patent document WO 2018/231858 A1) and Cai et al (provided foreign patent document CN 109123893 A, wherein examiner relies on provided machine translation and elements from drawings for citations).
Regarding claims 1-12; Hotaling discloses a device (element 5) for obtaining penis circumference change data during penile tumescence monitoring (paragraphs [0061]-[0063]) comprising:
a casing (element 10) comprising holes (ports of casing, element 10, from which circumferential gauge, element 19, extends out of; see figures 1a-4b) and a reel which is arranged within the casing and rotatably connected to the casing (embodiment where inelastic band is attached to spring loaded spooling device; wherein examiner notes that a spool would inherently be rotatably connected to the housing in order to allow the inelastic band to be pooled out of the spool; paragraph [0061]),
a spring arranged in the reel and operably connected to the reel by one end thereof and to the casing by an opposite end thereof (wherein spring-loaded spooling device inherently has a spring that allows for retraction of inelastic band to wind up remaining band material; paragraph [0061]),
a mechanism for measuring circumference based on how much the spool has been withdrawn (paragraph [0061]),
a printed circuit board (PCB element 27; paragraph [0069]) arranged in the casing (element 10) comprising a potentiometer (paragraph [0061]) and a microprocessor (element 17), the potentiometer operably arranged to measure the circumference from the spring loaded spooling device to output the measured data to the microprocessor for processing the received data (paragraph [0061], said PCB (element 27) further comprising a communication module (element 18) arranged to transmit data (paragraphs [0070]-[0071]; figures 1b and 8),
a loop (element 11 would represent inelastic band embodiment described in paragraph [0061]), wherein thread is attached within the reel at a fixing point, partially wound up on the reel, while the thread extends of the casing through the respective holes and said threads are mutually attached outside of the device forming the loop (paragraph [0061] and figures 1-4b).
Hotaling differs from the instant invention in that while it discloses the use of a spring-loaded spooling device utilizing a mechanism to gauge circumference, it does not provide explicit details to how the spring-loaded spool is loaded in the casing, or the details of the mechanism for measuring/gauging the circumference.
Persidsky teaches a known spring-loaded spool mechanism for mounting within a casing (element 702) for measuring a circumference of a body part comprising:
a casing (element 702) and a reel (element 726), which is arranged within the casing and rotatably connected to the casing (page 14, line 24 – page 16, line 4; figures 1, 2, 8a-c and 10-13)
a spring (element 748) arranged in a reel (element 730) and operably connected to the reel (at element 732) by one end thereof (hook end, element 756) and to the casing (at spring slot, element 752 on arbor, element 750) by an opposite end thereof (spring catch element 754) (page 14, line 24 – page 16, line 4; figures 1, 2, 8a-c and 10-13);
a magnet (element 760) centrally positioned on a disk (element 736), the disk (element 736) covering the reel (wherein plate 736 is meets BRI of disc and covers spool, element 730, which defines the spring and belt are held; page 14, line 24 – page 16, line 4; figures 1, 2, 8a-c and 10-13, specifically 8a, 10 and 11);
a printed circuit board (element 766) arranged in the casing (element 702) comprising a magnetic rotary encoder (element 780) and a microprocessor (element 786), the magnetic rotary encoder (element 780) operably arranged to measure the position of the rotation angle of the magnet (element 760) and to output the measured data to the microprocessor (element 786) for processing the received data, the magnetic rotary encoder (element 780) being adjacent to and facing the magnet (element 760) (page 15, line 35 – page 17, line 7; figures 10-15); and
a loop (element 722) formed by a band (element 704) (figure 7b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute Hotaling’s spring loaded spooling device and measurement mechanism with Persidsky’s spring-loaded reel and magnetic rotary encoder as simple substitution of one known element for another to yield a predictable result (in the instant case, Hotaling’s penile circumference monitoring device utilizing Persidsky’s spring loaded reel and magnetic rotary encoder for measuring circumference). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to mount Persidsky’s spring-loaded spool and magnetic rotary encoder within the housing of Hotaling as taught by Persidsky as use of a known technique on a known device to yield a predictable result.
Further regarding claims 1-12; the Hotaling/Persidsky combination as described above does not disclose the loop as formed by two string threads wherein the two string threads being mutually attached within the reel at a fixing point by one end of each string thread, and both string threads entering into an outer base channel of the reel, are partially wound up on said outer base channel of the reel, while the opposite ends of the string threads extend outside of the casing through the respective holes and said threads are mutually attached outside of the device forming the loop.
Cai teaches a similar device for monitoring changes in circumference of a body part due to edema utilizing a spring loaded spool (element 43) and magnetic rotary encoder (element 30) wherein one embodiment utilizes a loop (when elements 20 are tied together) formed by two string threads (two inelastic ropes, elements 20) wherein the two string threads (elements 20) being mutually attached within the reel at a fixing point by one end of each string thread (discloses the two inelastic ropes have ethe same connection structure to the reel), and both string threads entering into an outer base channel of the reel (wherein the second end of the inelastic ropes are wound around rotating body, which would define the base channel), are partially wound up on said outer base channel of the reel (wherein the inelastic ropes are wound on rotating body), while the opposite ends of the string threads extend outside of the casing through the respective holes (out of holes defined in substrate, element 7, and guide mesh fabrics, elements 13) and said threads are mutually attached outside of the device forming the loop (wherein the second ends of the two inelastic ropes can be mutually bound in a conventional shoelace tying mode; example 2, pages 6-7 of translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the Hotaling/Persidsky combination to utilize a loop formed of two strings wrapped around a spring-loaded spool as taught by Cai as simple substitution of one known element for another to yield a predictable result (in this case, replacing the single thread secured to a spring loaded reel and magnetic rotary encoder that extends out of the casing to make the loop in order to measure changes in circumference of a body part with with two inelastic threads secured to the spring loaded reel that extend out of the casing of the Hotaling/Persidsky holes and can be bound together to form a loop around a body party to measure changes in circumference).
Accordingly, the Hotaling/Persidsky/Cai combination as described above meets all of the limitations of independent claim 1.
Further regarding claim 2; Hotaling discloses measuring data and storing it for processing before transmitting the data from the microcontroller (paragraph [0056]). However, Hotaling does not explicitly disclose a memory module configured to store the data received from the microprocessor.
Persidsky teaches the PCB further comprises a memory module configured to store the data received from the microprocessor (page 17, lines 29 – page 18, line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the Hotaling/Persidsky/Cai combination to include a memory module as taught by Persidsky to store the data received from the microprocessor for wireless transmission.
Further regarding claims 3-5; As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, the Hotaling/Persidsky/Cai combination mounts the spring-loaded reel and magnetic encoder in the casing as taught by Persidsky.
Persidsky teaches the casing comprises a top part (element 706) having a protrusion (element 750) and a bottom part (element 708) (wherein the examiner notes that top and bottom parts are relative to how the housing is held).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the Hotaling/Persidsky/Cai combination casing would also comprise a top part having a protrusion and a bottom part as taught by Persidsky in order to mount the reel inside the casing.
Further regarding claim 4; Persidsky further teaches spring (element 748) is connected by one end (element 754) thereof to the protrusion (element 750) centrally arranged on the inner side of the top part (element 706) of the casing (702) and the opposite end (756) of the spring (748) passes through the base channel (734 and 744) of the reel (element 726), and protrudes via a reel hole (element 732) back to the inner side of the reel (element 726) (page 14, line 24 – page 15, line 34; figures 8a-8c).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the spring of the Hotaling/Persidsky/Cai combination casing would also be mounted to the casing the same manner as taught by Persidsky.
Further regarding claim 5; Persidsky further teaches wherein the protrusion (element 750) comprises a slit (element 752) connected with the end (element 754) of the spring (element 748) (figures 2 and 8c).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the spring of the Hotaling/Persidsky/Cai combination casing would also include a protrusion having a slit for connecting to the end of the spring as taught by Persidsky.
Further regarding claim 6; the Hotaling/Persidsky/Cai combination as described in the rejection of claim 1 above discloses a magnetic rotary encoder. Hotaling discloses the microprocessor that works with the rotary encoder is programmed with algorithms, said algorithms being Analog to Digital Converter (ADC) and Digital Signal Processing (DSP) algorithms (wherein and ADC is disclosed and filtering, timing, storing, scaling and extrapolating and processing raw data are digital signal processing algorithms; paragraph [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the Hotaling/Persidsky/Cai combination would also have ADC and DSP algorithms on the microprocessor or magnetic rotary encoder for converting and processing the signal for wireless transmission as taught by Hotaling.
Further regarding claim 7; Persidsky teaches that the magnetic rotary encoder may contain integrated Hall sensors (page 16, lines 15-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the Hotaling/Persidsky/Cai combination to also use integrated Hall sensors as taught by Persidsky in order to sense the amount of rotation and determine changes in circumference.
Further regarding claim 8; Hotaling discloses the device comprises a power supply unit (element 24), the power supply unit including a battery (element 21) and a micro-usb port (element 26) (paragraph [0066]; figure 2a). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the Hotaling/Persidsky/Cai combination would also include a power supply unit including a battery and a micro-usb port as taught by Hotaling in order to power and recharge the device.
Further regarding claim 9; both Hotaling and Cai discloses holes are arranged on opposite sides of the casing to allow for the measurement loop to extend out of the housing (see figures 1-4b of Hotaling and figure 8 of Cai). Persidsky teaches that a hole (element 716) is in the top part (element 706) of the cases for allowing the measuring thread to extend out. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the Hotaling/Persidsky/Cai combination so that the top part of the casing has holes (Persidsky) being positioned on one side and the opposite side (Hotaling and Cai) to allow for passage of the string thread out of the casing in order to form a loop and measure the circumference of the penis.
Further regarding claim 10; as noted in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, the interpretation of the claim does not require the specific dimension of the magnet as it is merely referred to as preferably. Accordingly, the magnet of the Hotaling/Persidsky/Cai combination meets the BRI of the claim. The examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the magnet of the Hotaling/Persidsky/Cai combination the claimed dimensions as the mere change of size of the magnet would not affect the function of the Hotaling/Persidsky/Cai combination (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A).
Further regarding claims 11 and 12; the Hotaling/Persidsky/Cai combination is described in the rejection of claim 1 above. Hotaling and Persidsky further teach that the device is wirelessly connected to a cloud database (figure 8 of Hotaling or page 10, lines 26-30 of Persidsky). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the Hotaling/Persidsky/Cai combination such that the device is wirelessly connected to a cloud database for recording, storing, and analyzing the received data as taught by Hotaling and Persidsky.
Further regarding claim 12; Hotaling and Persidsky both further disclose the device is wirelessly connected to a smart device for storing the data, which is wirelessly connected to a cloud database for recording, storing, and analyzing the received data (figure 8 of Hotaling or page 10, lines 26-30 of Persidsky). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the Hotaling/Persidsky/Cai combination such that the device is wirelessly connected a smart device for storing the data, which is wirelessly connected to a cloud database for recording, storing, and analyzing the received data as taught by Hotaling and Persidsky.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2010/0286547 A1 to Aoude; discloses a breathing detection device and method for detecting asynchronous or arrested breathing which monitors changes of circumference of a body part using a loop comprised of two strands.
US 2022/0087575 A1 to Persidsky; discloses a system and method to monitor, guide and evaluate breathing that utilizes a similar circumference monitoring mechanism.
US 8,146,261 to Perry; discloses a fish girth measuring system which measures the change in circumference of a fish using a loop.
WO 2007/095906 A2 to Bittkowski; discloses a device for measurements of human body parts that measures circumferences using a loop formed of two threads.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J EISEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3818. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (7:00 AM - 4:00 PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM J EISEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791